In the Museum

At the Met, Feb 2010.

Viewing




Drawing




Listening




Best wishes, K.

I quite like no. 3, Kris. But they all seem a bit soft to me. I guess this has to do with the light and the shutter speed you had to use (haven't been able to check the EXIF, as I don't know how!).

They are all shot at f/2.8 so the DoF is rather shallow. I fear they are all a bit soft though, I am not very good a grabbing quick shots.

Soft or not the images are interesting. I love the various attitudes of the people in the shots.
david

Hi Kris,

Soft or not, I like them.

I am preparing for a Paris trip, and this very subject is advised as perfect for the city' museums/galleries i.e. a study of people studying art etc.

I think you have captured that theme very well!

I like all of them, but especially number 3.

The crop in number 1 is a bit tight around the frame for me. In number 2 the empty space bottom right in bugs me, perhaps a bit more space on the left and top would balance it out a bit. The composition in number 3 is perfect

I don't think they're soft, it's just that you seem to have focussed on the artwork rather than the people. I thought it was deliberate

There is more in the original, I could give it some more space.


Again there is more in the original but I cropped it tight on left and top to get rid of a burnt out window in the background.[/quote]Thank you!

In 2 I certainly did focus on the face of the statue. Not certain that was the right choice in hindsight. In one the focus is on the picture as I thought the painting would look odd out of focus compared to the people. I was already at ISO 1600. I suppose I could have upped the aperture to f/4 or f/5.6 and hoped the SR worked. I only had one chance at the shot.

Is this better?




K.

I much prefer this version of NUmber 1

I like the new version of number 1, it feels much less cramped, and you can finally see what dad was looking at

I agree
Good moments !

I love them all, Kris: there's a quiet thoughtfulness to the images.

I really think one shouldn't stress too much about the sharpness of this type of photography. I mean, nobody told Robert Capa to get back on the landing craft and reshoot the Normandy landings because they weren't sharp enough...

I actually prefer the soft differentiation of the old guy sketching...

Best wishes,

Andrew

The question is whether it was more appropriate to focus on the people or the art? I think the general rule of thumb would be to get people sharp as they will inevitably be the main focus of attention, even when small in the frame.

For me, in your first photo - a shot in which the onlookers were sharp and the art softer(but with some detail) would, IMO, probably have made a better image. In the second, I actually think that probably either could be appropriate. In the third, which I find most interesting as a composition, there doesn't seem to me to be any compelling reason to
have focused on the back wall - and I find the lack of detail on the women distracting.

I hesitated to post this given others' overwhelmingly positive response - being wary of coming across as a curmudgeon. However, I do feel that there's too little constructive criticism on PUF. And we can all learn from a little disagreement!

I tend to Mhuni's point of view. These shots are soft and for me at least the content does not compensate for this failing. As I recall Capa's shots were blurred for a good reason or for effect this is not what Kris was attempting or so I believe.

These shots need to be sharp to work especially the best of the lot number 3 where we have proper composition and an interesting subject.

I think having focus on the statue was a good decision in the other two I would have chosen a different focus point.

I also agree that some discussion and disagreement is a healthy thing from which we can all learn. The danger is that offence is taken where none was intended and no-one wants to discourage anyone from taking photographs!

Mike

Capa's shots were blurred because he was up to his neck in the English Channel, being thrown about on a landing craft or being shot at. My point was that grab shots which, by their very nature, have not been carefully set up with all of the technical niceties observed, do not have to be technically perfect in order to be successful.

This is one of the things that photography brings to "art". As well as mimicing oil painting with traditional pictorial views or staged portraits complete with arful drapes and potted plants, (which is how the nineteenth century pioneers began), the advent of "miniature" cameras like early Leicas allowed a more spontaneous approach. The decisive moment, if you will.

If Kris, or anyone else for that matter, was photographing an old clock tower having spent half an hour setting up his 5x4 view camera on a tripod, the photograph would have to be sharp. That would be one of the main points.

But there again, the other beauty of the genre is the right to different opinions and to admire different photographs.

Best wishes,

Andrew

I agree a grab shot does not have to be technically perfect but in this case I can't see why the focus can't be correct and the overall photograph sharp. These were static subjects and Kris had some time so personally I would say there is no reason to lower his usual high standards. To some extent we need to define grab shot. IMO these aren't.

I hope I am not upsetting Kris with constant reference to him - there is nothing personal in this we are just using your photographs as a talking point! We can switch to one of my less successful shots if we wish in fact I'll put two shots up later (I am supposed to be working) and we can chew those over to avoid any risk of offence being taken

Mike